The SitePoint Forums have moved.

You can now find them here.
This forum is now closed to new posts, but you can browse existing content.
You can find out more information about the move and how to open a new account (if necessary) here.
If you get stuck you can get support by emailing forums@sitepoint.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The original Celeron's didn't have an L2 cache and that slowed them down. Celeron's also are sold in a Socket 370 configuration instead of a Slot configuration.

This means that newer Celeron's can only access the L2 cache at 50% processor speed while PIII's can access it at 100% processor speed. For most purposes you won't notice the slight decrease in speed.

In the future both AMD and Intel will sell their processors in a socket configuration again instead of the slot configuration. The bonuses from have the processor on a daughter card are almost null as speeds start to approach 1.5 gigaheartz.

p.s. AMD may sell the best processors around but Intel currently sells the only 1+ gigahertz processors that you can utilize Symmetrical Multi-Processing under x86 software which includes both Linux and Windows.

I just want to say that I use a Celeron at work (400 MHz) and it is painfully slow under Linux. My AMD K6-3 400 MHz runs linux MUCH faster. My boss ran some scientific tasks on the Celeron and it took 6 minutes vs 3 minutes for P-III 500.

I don't say you must follow my example, but my next PC will have an AMD Duron processor...

Currently I've a Celeron 400 in my PC, and I'm not really happy with it

Some programs (games) work painfully slow when compared to when they're being run on a Pentium/Athlon system.

News Flash: The Pentium 1.13 GHz procs have been recalled, 'cause when it reach a certain temperature it almost stops working and it causes the whole system to crash. This is a good chance for AMD to make its new 1.1 GHz proc populair.

Originally posted by Elledan I don't say you must follow my example, but my next PC will have an AMD Duron processor...

Currently I've a Celeron 400 in my PC, and I'm not really happy with it

Some programs (games) work painfully slow when compared to when they're being run on a Pentium/Athlon system.

News Flash: The Pentium 1.13 GHz procs have been recalled, 'cause when it reach a certain temperature it almost stops working and it causes the whole system to crash. This is a good chance for AMD to make its new 1.1 GHz proc populair.

PS: you can overclock an AMD proc much better than a Pentium one

Its too bad that SMP still isn't supported on AMD's chips. Hopefully they'll finally get it right with Thunderbird but that requires all new motherboards since it will be more widely available in a socket configuration instead of a slot.

p.s. I don't care about overclocking. I would much rather buy more power than risk destroying the whole machine.

AMD can not gaurantee their long term growth. They bet the company on the Athlon and while it was popular, and has brought the company further from the brink of financial ruin, one little misstep could send them spiraling down again. If the Processor recalled had been AMD's that could have been the misstep that destroyed the company. That is a lot to bet on. If they continue to do things right and prosper then they will be able to guarantee this in the future and make their products more viable to the industry.

Intel is the only processor I am looking at right now because Intel has the only processors that supports SMP on the x86 architecture. I don't need to look at 1+ gigahertz processors because if I can use 2,3 or 4 cheaper 500, 600 or 700 megahertz processors I can still get the power I want. With Intel Processors I can buy a multi-proc motherboard ($300-$400) and add processors ($200-$300 each)as I need more power. This also means the machine will be more stable since I can balance the load through NT or Linux through the multiple processors allowing them to run cooler than a single processor at comparable speeds would be able to do. If one processor were to die (I have never had a processor die on me yet), I could remove it and still be able to use the PC until it could be replaced.

The motherboards to support this on the AMD side aren't even available yet and I would have to wait until they released their 760 chipset.

AMD chips may be less expensive on average, but in my comparison's the motherboards required to run them are more expensive and at higher speeds the prices level out. Besides with the problems VIA has been having with their ATHLON bridge (KX133) requires you to wait until the next release (KT133) if you want to build a serious Athlon computer because they make the only motherboards worth having if your using an Athlon CPU (in my opinion). Also in gaming tests the new mighty enhanced Athlon 1.1 GHz was beaten by the 1 GHz P-III (pg. 57 Maximum PC, Sept 2000) but it did better in tests that could utilize the L2 cache. So I guess it comes down to an individual's needs.

I know it all comes down to personal choice and even though the AMD processors are good processors, they just don't give me 100% of what I am looking for in a chip these days.. It is good that they released the Duron instead of making people reliant on the venerable K6-3 and K6-2 processors for bargain chips, I think this is a step in the right direction for the financially troubled company.

I may switch to AMD because they are so much cheaper... just have to find a reasonably priced (probably have to settle for one from the computer fair again) motherboard. I may wait a while though because a fast tbird may not be much faster than my current pc...

I think SMP is a moot point. Until recently I was using a Pentium 200 MMX. It had no USB, 33 speed IDE bus, and old style (88 pin?) RAM. It supported 2 CPUs. Are you saying that getting another Pentium 200 is a viable option? It's not. And the same thing is true with what you're saying. by the time most people want to upgrade new technology (USB 2, AGP 8x, fireware, etc) will have incresed to the point where doubling up isn't smart. Intel claims they will be realeasing 2 gigahertz before the end of next year (or was it AMD?) 2 700 MHz processors ain't going to cut it.

Dual processor motherboards are also significantly more expensive than single motherboards (double from your numbers). With all factors compared, buying a new motherboard and CPU every year (or 2) is a better deal than saving up to get a dual. If the prices stay constant (one processor:$200 single processor mboard: $150) and for dual (dual processor mboard: $300 two CPUs: $200x2, though eventrally it will cost less just like a 200 MHz Pentium costs very little now) then wait and get the newest technology when it comes out instead of hanging onto your old antiquated technology.

I like intels better too, but 3 months ago I bought a $100 400 MHz AMD that was equilivent (according to Norton Utils) to a 500 MHz PIII costing then around $250.

The final straw for me is the long time Intel stonghold, Anandtech.com, stopped recommending Intel processors as being a viable option for budget (less than $2000) computers.

I bought my xeons in 1997, from a computer fair, they have been going fine since... I have made other changes to my system like adding UltraDMA66 along side SCSI, new video card (not AGP, yet) and I overclocked my processors to 400mhz... speed wise, it can still compete with the faster home user computers available today...

I was thinking more of processors and hardware within the budget of the average user. Most people can't afford a Xeon. If you can, then I guess you're fine. Same thing if you can afford a 4x multiprocessor board - they're very expensive (probably more than 4 one processor) but should last awhile.

"Who would've thought that a multiprocessor system would be considered a "poor-man's upgrade?" In lieu of the price
drops on Intel's now discontinued older Pentium II processors, the performance adding a second processor to an older
system would offer over buying a faster single CPU (possibly with a new motherboard) depends entirely on the nature of
the applications you'll be running on your system. While the improvement in business applications won't be too
wonderfully noticeable, graphics artists and development professionals will generally find that multiprocessor systems will
end up giving them the most bang for their buck, especially in extending the life of their current systems. The
performance improvement AnandTech's tests illustrated under CAD Drafting applications indicates that a single, more
powerful CPU is more desirable than two slower processors, however the ideal solution in any of these cases would be
an upgrade to a multiprocessor system using the fastest processors available at the time...but then again, the ideal
solution isn't always the most practical. "

Anyway, things are changing with more multiprocessor compliant software coming out, but for now...

Go back a few pages in the article and you'll see no difference between one and two processors with 64 megs. Lots of difference with 128 megs, and diminishing difference with 512 megs. The moral? Buy more RAM.

Thanks, I'll bear that in mind... but I did get a 100Mhz bus (it was late 1997). I may just get a single Athlon tbird next though, when they drop in price .. because I will have to upgrade my whole computer... I've still got a 15" monitor!